^^. 













bt 


















' • o* 'Vi> 

















'bl 
0^ 






,/,-^i'-\. ./..'>^->^. ..**\-^^'.X 









<^^ *"^- ^« 






V ^i::^ 







1^ . ■* • 






» ''^v 



L» ~;<v 















__ „ _. ^^ 



^°^ 
















V""^* .<^ ,.. <e. 










*.^" . 














SPEECH 



HOJV. JOHN HEMPHILL, 

OF TEXAS, 

on 

THE STATE OF THE UNION. 



DELIVERED IN TUE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 2S, 1S61. 



The Senate having under consideration the mission of peace from Virginia — Mr. 
HEMPHILL said: 

Mr. President : The right of a State to withdraw from the Union is tlie transcend- 
ent issue before the countrj-, and I propose to give it a brief discussion. If it be 
legal, it should be peaceful ; if not— if but a right of rebellion— it involves wjy- and 
subjugation, unless the rebellion becomes successful revolution. 

Whether the secession of a State be the exercise of a legal or revolutionary right, 
must depend ultimately upon the question of sovereignty. Where is that paramount 
power vested ? It must exist in every nation, and as perfectly in one form of govern- 
ment as anotlier. 

In 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, pp. 48, 49, it is said that — 

" However the several forms of government we now see in the world at first actually began, is 
matter of great uncertainty an<l has octasiom-d infinite disputes. It is not my l)usiness or intention 
to enter into any of tiium. How they t-ver began, or by what right soever Ihoy suhsist, there is and 
must be in all of tliera a supreme, irresistible, absolute, and uncontrolled authority, in whieh the 
jitra 9Hmml imperii, or the rights of sovereignty, reside." 

In a despotism, the monarch is sovereign. In Great Britain the sovereignty is 
lodged in a King, Lords, and Commons. These are the sovereigns; because the acts 
of the despot aad of the legislative authority of Great Britain control all individuals 
and all other powers of the State, and are subject t« no revision or reversal. lu 
America it is an undisputed political axiom that sovereignty resides in the people. 
Governments, in this country, are not sovereigns; they are restrained by constitu- 
tions whieh are mere charts or grants of power from the people, who can abrogate 
these charts, revoke their grants, institute new governments, and in whom only can 
reside the rights of sovereignty, that sum of all civil and political power which 
controls all authorities, and is controlled by none. Sovereignty is not in the people 
as a mass of indiviiuals, but as a political body or community; and the issue is, 
does it reside in tlie whole people of the United States as a political community, or 
does it remain in the people of the several States, forming distinct, separate commu- 
nities though united for special purposes in a Federal Union? This is a practical 
issue, and depends on historical facts. 

That the colonies were distinct and separate from each other, having the same 
executive head, but no political connection, is as indubitable as any fact upon the 
records of liistory. That the delegates in the Continental Congress did not repre- 
sent the whole people of the colonies as one political body, but that each deleg^ition 
was chosen and appointed severally, by each several colony, to attend the " Con- 
gress of delef-ates" from the other colonies, and assist in devising means for the per- 

Printed by Lemuel Towers, at 81 00 per hundred copies. 






^ 



petuation of tlieir liberties, is a fact attested by the Journals of tbe Congress. 
Each delegation presented its credentials from the respective colony or province 
from which it had been deputed. The vote was by colonies; each colony having 
but one vote. No question could be determined on the day of its debate if "any 
colony" desired its postponement. (Journals of Congress, volume 1, page 7.) Their 
first declaration was in the name of the "good people" of the several colonies of 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Ac, enumeraung the thirteen who had, in the ' 
languaoe of the declaration, '^severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies 
to meet and sit in General Congress," &c., and who, in vindication of their rights 
and liberties, resolved — 

"That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to 
participate in their legislative council ; and as the English colonists are n'>t reprcsenti'd, and, from 
their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British Parliaiiient, they 
are entilied to a free and exclusive power of legislation in the'\r several prorhicia/ LefjixUttai-es, 
where their right of representation can alone, bo preserved in all cases of taxation and internal 
polity, subject "only to the negative of the sovereign, in such manner as lias been heretofore used 
and accustomed." 

Here is an unequivocal declaration that the colonists were entitled to. a free and 
exclusive power of legislation — not in any general Congress or Legislature of the 
colonies, for there had been no such Legislature, but in their several provincial 
Legislatures— showing that the provinces were, from the beginning, totally distinct 
aiiS ocpa,.«tft fi-om each other. The styl^ of tUo prooooJing^ In Congress was, in 
some instances, by the title of the United Colonies; in others, by that ot ths United 
Colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, ifec, enumerating the whole — these 
titles being the equivalent of each other. 

The United Colonies, dissolving all* political connection between themselves and 
Great Britain, declared themselves to be. free and independent States, and not a 
single free and independent State or nation. This aet, though done by the colonies 
united in Congress, was in fact the act of each one of the colonies. Each of the 
colonics had instructed, expressly or virtually, their respective delegates to unite 
in such declaration. It was ujton the instructions from Virginia that the motion 
was oftered in convention, and those instructions expressly reserved the right of 
Belf-government to the States. The several colonies were — and had been for some 
period — in a de facto state of independence. Hostilities commencing at Lexington 
in April, 1*775, liad been vigorously prosecuted. Massachusetts, in the same mouth, 
voted to raise thirteen thousand six hundred men; Rhode Island, fifteen hundred; 
Connecticut, six regiments ; New Hampshire, in May, three regiments. In March, 
1776, South Carolina established a constitution; Virginia had her bill of rights and 
frame of government; the allegiance of the citizens of the different colonies was 
claimed as due to such colony, and not to Great Britain. Such was the opinion and 
declaration of Congress on the 24th June, 1770, to the effect that — 

"All persons, members of, or owing allegiance to, any of the United Colonies, who shall levy war 
against any of the said colonies within the same, or be adherent to the King of Great Britain, or 
oUier enemies of the said colonies, or any of them, within the same, giving to him or them aid and 
comfort, are guilty of treaioii against suehcolony." 

These facts, and others of like character prior to the Declaration of Independence, 
prove that the colonies, while exerting their joint efforts for the common defence, 
had each assumed the rights and powers of sovereignty within their own limits. 
They were substantially independent; and whether each declared such fact sepa- 
rateh', or whether all united in the declaration, under the authority given by each 
to its agents for that purpose, cannot affect the great truth that the United States 
were independent, for the reason atid upon the sole ground that each State was 
absolved from its allegiance to the British Crown, and was an independent State. 

The States snbseqii^eutly adopted written articles of confederacy, which were 
entitled Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the States of New 




United States of America, and, by the stipulation of the second article, each State 
expressly retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, 
isrisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to 
the United States in Congress assembled. In the treaty of peace the thirteen United 
States, by their respective titles, were acknowledged by Great Britain to be Iree and 
independent States. ^ ■,.,•* r ». 

These facts are conclusive that the colonies were Mparate and distinct from eacn 
other; that they were represented as distinct bodies in Congress— voted as such ; 



8 

X tbat, as States, they remained separate and distinct; that there was no euch com- 
"- munity known or recognized as the people of the United Colonies or the peo])le of 
the United States; bnt the polilical communities were the people of the several 
colotiies — afterwards the people of the several States — it being expressly declared 
in their compact that each State retained its sovereignty, and every power not 
granted to the Confederacy. 

The several States being sovereign members of this the first Confederacy, did they 
(^'Cease to be sovereign by their act in the adoption of the Federal Constitution? Did 
they become a single nation, or a consolidated political unity, or did thej- remain a 
Confederacy of States? That they acted as States, as separate sovereign communi- 
ties, in the framing and ratification of the Constitution, is undeniable. The vote ia 
convention was b}^ States, each State by its delegates having hut one vote. The 
Constitution was transmitted through the Congress of the Confederation to the 
Legislatures of the several States, and was by them respectively submitted to State 
conventions elected and assembled under the law of each State. It was ratified by 
conventions severally of each State acting for itself, and became obligatory by the 
article declaring that " the ratifications of the conventions of nine States shall be 
sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying 
the same." The first State in the process of ratification was Delav^'are, on the 12th 
December, 1787 ; the ninth. New Hampshire, on the 21st June, 1788. The Consti- 
tution was tliPn established as a chart of Government between the nine ratifying 
States, and had it gone into immediate operation, Virginia. New York, North Carolina, 
and Rhode Island would have been foreign States, separate and iudependcnt of the 
Confederacy and of each other. And when the new Government went into opera- 
tion in March, 1789, North Carolina and Rhode Island having declined to ratify, 
were foreign States, and were treated as such in the act of July 81, 1789. The ratifi- 
cations of the eleven States could not impose the Constitution on North Carolina 
and Rhode Island; and the ratifications of twelve could not impose it on Rhode 
Island, and had she never acceded to the Constitution she would have remained to 
this daj' as separate and independent as France, England, or other foreign Power. 
Each State acted for itself, and was bound by its own fict, and that alone, in the 
adoption of the Constitution. 

But the States, though sovereign, had, it may be said, the power to abandon their 
sovereignty; to annihilate themselves, and create a new nation; and it is insisted 
that this has been effected, and that the grants and prohibitions of the Constitutioa 
extinguish, at least joro tanlo, the sovereignty itself of the States. But this propo- 
sition is a misconception, confounding the distinction between sovereignty and the 
functions and powers of sovereigntj-. The latter, in representative Governments, 
must be exercised by agents; but the sovereignty itself remains in the principal, 
namply, the people from whom the powers are derived and by whom they may be 
recalled. 

It is generally conceded that the grants of powers in the constitution of a State 
do not effect the sovereignty which remains in the jiolitical body, namely, the people, 
■who can alter, modify, and revoke such constitution. This being admitted, can it 
be contended tliat the delegation, by several States, of certain powers of sovereignty 
to be exercised conjointl}' by a Federal Goverument or common agency, institutea 
by them for that [mrpose, impairs the sovereignty of each of the States? Thee* 
powers being delegated, remain the powers of the principal. By the delegation of 
a portion of its powers, the State is not annihilated. She still retains her separate 
organization ; iwr existence as a distinct political community ; her independent Leg- 
islature ; her control over the property', social and domestic relations, and criminal 
jurisdiction of the country, every right and power not delegated, and, in faei, her 
body politic iu every respect; and has not lost that sovereignty residing as an active, 
regulated, recognized, and all controlling power in the people of the State. And 
such is the authoiitative opinion of most distinguished publicists on the sovereignty 
of States in confederation. Vattel (B. 1. c. 184,) says: 

" Every nation tliat govema itself, under what form soever, witiioat dependence on any roreign 
Power, is a sovereign State." 

And section ten : 

Several sovereign and independent States may unite themselvcB by a perpetual confederacy wilfc- 
out ceasing to be earli, individually, a perfect State. They will together constitute a federal i». 
public. Tlieir joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may 
Jn certain respects, put gome restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagemenl^ 
A person does not cease to be free and independent when he ia obliged to fulfill engagements whitii 
be has voluatarlly contracted. 



" Such were formally the cities of Greece ; such are at present the seven United Provinces of the 
Netherlands; and such tlie members of the Helvetic body." 

Judge Tucker, the distinguished commeutator oa Blaekstone, treats this subject 
itt a very lucid manner, aa follows: 

" This independency of States, and their being distinct political bodies from each other, is not 
obstructed by any alliance or confederacies vi'hatsoever, about exercising jointly any parts of the su- 
preme power; such as those of peace and war, in leagues offensive and defensive. Two States, 
notwithstanding such treaties, are separate bodies and independent. 

" They are, then, only deemed polilically united when some one person or council is constituted 
■with a right to exercise some essential powers for both, and to hinder either from exercising them 
separately. If any person or council is empowered to exercise all tliese essential powers for both, 
they are then one State : such is the state of England and Scotland, since the act of Union made 
at the beginning of the eighteenth century, whereby the two kingdoms were incorporated into one, 
all parts ol the supreme power of both kingdoms being thenceiorward united and vested in the 
three estates of the realm of Great Britain ; by wliich entire coalition, though both kingdoms re- 
tain their ancient laws and usages in many respects, they are as effectually united and incorporated 
as the several petty kingdoms wliich composed the heptarchy were before that period. 

"But when only a portion of the supreme civil power is vested in one person or council for both, 
such as that of peace and war, or of deciding controversies between different States, or their sub- 
jects, wjiilst each State wilhiii itself exercises other parts of the supreme power, independently of 
all the others; in tliise;isf tlu^y are called xi/.ste »i n of iitates, vih\cliBar\aiDaqu\ defines to be sin assem- 
blage of perfect governments, strictly united l>y some common bond, so that they seem to make but 
a single body with respect to those affairs which interest them in common, though each preserves 
its sovereignty full and entire, independently of all the others." * * * "And in this case, he adds, 
the confederate States engage to each other only to exercise with common consent certain parts of 
the sovereignty, especially those which relate to their mutual defense against foreign enemies. 
But each of the confederates retains an entire liberty or exercising as It thinks proper those parts 
of the sovereignty which ai-o not mentioned in the treaty of union as parts that ought to be exer- 
cised in common. And of this nature is the American Confederacy, in which each State has re- 
signed the exercise of certain jiarts of the supreme civil power which they possessed before — ex- 
cept in common with the other States included in the Confederacy— reserving to themselves all 
their former jiowers, which are not delegated to the United States by the common bond of Union. 

"A ^ isilib- ilislinclion, and not less important than obvious, occurs to our qjiservalion in compar- 
ing these diff<reiit kinds of union. The kingdoms of England and Scotland are united into one 
kingdom ; and the two contracting States by such an incorporate union are, in the opinion of Judge 
Blaekstone, totally annihilated, w'itliout any power of revival ; and a third arises trom their con- 
junction, in wliich all the rights of sovereignty, and particularly that of legislation, are vested. 
From whence he expresses a doulit whether any infringements of the fundamental and essential 
conditions of the union would of itself, dissolve the union of those kingdoms; though he readily 
admits that in the ease of a federate alliance such an intringement would certainly rescind the 
compact between the confederate States. In the United States of America, on the contrary, each 
State retains its own antecedent form of government ; its own laws, subject to the alteration and 
control of its own Legislature only ; its own executive officers and council of State; its own courts 
of judicature; its own judges ; its own magistrates, civil officers, and officers of the militia ; and, 
in short, its own civil State, or body politic, in every respect whatsoever. And by the exyiress decla- 
ration of the twelfth article to the amendments to the Constitution, the powers not delegated to the 
United Stales by the Constitution, nor jirohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Slates re- 
spectively, or to the people. In Great Britain, a new civi/ State is created by the annihilation of 
two antecedent civil States; In the American States, a genera] federal council, and administrative, 
is provided, for the joint exercise of such of their several powers as can be more conveniently ex- 
ercised in that mode than any other, leaving their cii}il I'itate unaltered, and all the other powers 
which the Slates antecedently possessed to be exercised by them respectively as if no Union or cou- 
nection were established between them." 

Some of the higher powers of sovereignty are delegated to the General Govcrn- 
eninient; but this has do greater efJieiency in transferring sovereignty itself than 
the grant of its most insignificant function or attribute. When Texas whA a sepa- 
rate Republic, she exercised all those grand powers of peace and war, of alliances 
and the regulation of foreign commerce, which throws such dazzling lustre over the 
Government of the United States. She had intrusted these and other powers un- 
der her eonstitutioQ to a single agent, namely, the Govermnent of the Republic. 
By virtue of her sovereignty, which she had not relinquished or impfiired, she, at 
the period of annexation, distributed these powers between two agents — one the 
Federal and the other her present State Government. Is she not as a soveieign now 
as she wasbefore this distribution ? Is not the General Government, to whiLh she 
has delegated some of her powers, just as mucii her trustee as was the Government 
of the Republic to which she had formerly intrusted them? And lias she not the 
same right and power to resume them now that she had to recall them from her 
former trustee and vest them in her present agent or attorney? She has not aban- 
doned the powers ceded to the Federal Goveiiiment ; she has only delegated them. 
She is still a State, a political body, with control over the lives, the liberties, and 
property of her people. She entered the Confederacy by compact ; and the cession 
of some of her powers does not detract from lier sovereigntj'. The deliberations in 
common, says Vattel, ofler no violence to the sovereignty of each member of a con- 
. federacy. 

The power of the General Government to punish individuals for crimes, to collect 
taxes and imposts from individuals without the direct consent of the State, is relied 



on as an argviment that the Union 'n not a Confederacy of State.-*, hut is a con.^oli da- 
ted Goverii«nent over the people of ihe United Slates. It is generally conceded that 
the States were parties to the old Confederacy, that tiiey were sovereign; mid yet, 
postage under that (A)nfederacy was collected from individuals; military and naval 
officers were apj)oiuted witli jurisdiction over life, and men were executed under 
thatjiirisdiction ; and courts of admiralty hadjurisdiction over persons and i)ropert.y. 
Jurisdiction over individuals, then, does not destroy the federative character of tire 
Union. In tlie fortylifth number of the Federalist, Mr. Madison says tliat the new 
Constitution — 

"Consists much less in the addition of new powers to tlie Union tliun in the invi^oration of its 
original powers. The ri'^'iilution of commerce, it is true, is a new power. The powers relating to 
war and peace, armiis, and lliH-ts, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, • 
arc all vested iu the existing Congress, by the Arlicles of Coiifoderatioii. The proposed change 
does not unlarge these powers; it only siibstitiUes a more ctfeetivi' metliod of administering them. 
The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important ; and yet, the present Con- 
gress have as complete authority to require of the States indefinite supplies of money, fijr the conimoa 
defence and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to re()uire them of individual citiz-ens ; 
and the latter will be no more bound than tlie Stales themselves have been to pay the quotas re- 
spectively taxed on them." 

I have shown that in certain particulars there was, under the confederation, a 
direct connection between the Government and individuals; and tlip only etlect of 
extending this direct action to the operations of tlie Government generally, was to 
impart energy and vigor, but not to change the federative character of the Union. 
Had the States paid their quotas, or could the payment have been enforced by the 
like peaceable processes which are successful against single persons, there would 
have been little or no necessity for the adoption of a new Constitution. But the 
action of the Federal Government, whether upon the State governments or on single 
persons, has force in a State by its assent only; and whether the State collects the 
taxes and J'ays them over to the General Government, or whether, by her concur- 
rence, the functionaries of that Government collect them from individuals, can be 
of no importance, nor can it detract from the sovereignty of the State, or convert 
a confederacy of States into a consolidation. 

The phraseology of the preamble — " we, the people of the United States" — is often 
relied upou in support of the position that the Constitution was framed by the whole 
people of the United States, aud not by the people of the several States, as distinct 
communities. The preamble, as reported by the committee of details, was: "We, 
the people of the States of New Hampshire, Mas^Achusetts, Rhode Island," <fec., 
through the thirteen. This was altered by the committee of style and arrangement 
to, "We, the people of the United States," without assigning any reason for the 
change. But the phrases are the equivalent of each other. The States were theti 
in confederacy. The Articles of Confederation were iu terms between iVew Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, &c.; and the style of the Confederatidn was "the Unite<l States 
of America;"' and the terms, "the people of New Hampshire," Ac, (s})ecitying the 
whole of them,) or, "the people of the United States," were identically the same 
thing in meaning and substance. There was, however, a substantial reason for the 
chan'ge in this instance. The Constitution was to be binding between those States 
only "that ratified the same, and the States which would accede to this new Unii n 
could not be known or enumerated until after the acts of ratification. If the old 
Union was but a Confederacy — and that is admitted — the new cannot be a consoli- 
dation from the use of the phrase "United States," which was, in fact, the style and 
title of the old Confederacy, and which was expressly between the thirteen States 
by specification and title, or between the people of those States; for the people of 
a State, as a political body, is the State itself. . 

The sixth article of the Constitution, declaring the Constitution and laws made in 
pursuance thereof, and treaties, to be the supreme law of the land, is supposed to 
give the General Government special supremacy beyond the control of the States, 
and, in fact, subject to no control, except the will of a majority of the people of 
the United States. This is not so much a new power, as a more specific expiessiou 
of the intent of the stipulation in the Articles of Confederation, that — 

" Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all 
questions which, by this confederation, is submitted to them." 

The grant of such authority expressly or by implication was a necessity to the 
operation of the General Governiuent. Its powers are limited. Those of the State 
governments general. The Constitution and laws of the United States, if not su. 
preme, would have been in constant collision with those of the States. The consti. 



tutiou and laws of one State vary from those of other States; and unless those of 
the United States were paramount, they might be valid in some States,«and without 
effect in others. It was proper that laws made by the autliority of all the States 
should be superior to those of a single State; otherwise, they would have been 
almost nugatory and inoperative. This supremacy of the laws of the United States 
within the limits of a State arises from the assent of the people of that State to the 
Constitution. To that extent it may be regarded as the constitution of the State; 
and the Federal officers, but the functionaries of the State. If the State of South 
Carolina were now to form two governments within the limits of that State, one 
■with the powers that had been delegated to the Federal Government, and the other 
with the ordinarj- powers of her former State government, with the- declaration that 
tiie laws of the former should be supreme when they came in conflict with those of 
the latter, this would not impair the sovereignty of the people that bad delegated 
the powers to both of these governments. 

Another argument against the sovereignty of the States is, that treason may be 
committed against the United States ; that treason is a breacli of allegiance ; that 
allegiance is due to a sovereign; and that, therefore, the United States are sovereign. 
It is certainly competent for a number of sovereigns to stipulate that war levied 
against them in their united capacity should be defined and punished as treason. 
Would the United States have had the power to define and punish the crime of 
treason without express grant in the Constitution ? Certainly not. In 1832, a ques- 
tion was raised whether the German c/snfederation was a State, and consequently 
the object of treason. The Diet, for ftiture cases, decreed to the effect that since 
every State was part and parcel of the confederation, crimes committed against the 
confederation should be punished as treason against every particular State. (West- 
minster Review, July, 1860.) Legislation was required in Germany before the crime 
aeainst the confedei'ation could be punished; and had it been determined that the 
crime should be punished as treason against the State where committed, its soundness 
could not have been disputed. 

But if the Constitution had not defined the crime of levying war as treason against 
the United States, would not the offence have been treason against the State where 
committed? The Constitution and laws of the United States are in fact the laws 
and constitution of the State, and the crime might have been regarded as a breach 
of allegiance to the State. 

But nothing can be inferred against the federative character of the Union fronl 
the fact that a crime against the common Government is defined and is to be pun- 
ished as treason. 

This is the stipulation and agreement of the several sovereign parties. They were 
under no compulsion to adhere strictly to the technicality that treason was the 
breach of allegiance. Thej' had the power to define any crime against them jointly 
to be treason. If war against the old Confederacy had been defined treason against 
the United States, this would not have impugned its character as a federation, nor 
the sovereignty of the constituent States ; nor can it derogate from the sovereignty 
of these parties that, in the new compact, they defined the crime of levying war 
against them jointly to be treason, and provided for its punishnient. 

Frooi the facts and considerations detailed, the conclusion is irresistible that the 
States were, each one of them, sovereign, prior to the adoption of the Federal Con- 
stitution; that the Constitution is a compact between tliese sovereign States, by 
which they delegated a portion of the powers of sovereignty to be exercised con- 
juintly by a General Government; that they reserved to themselves all the powers 
not delegated ; that they still continued as States ; that they ratified the Constitution, 
each State for itself, in its highest sovereign capacity, in convention assembled in 
each State, under the law thereof; that it became binding on the people of each 
State by the act of the State, and not by the ratification of an}- or of all the other 
States; that the people of the several States, acting as distinct political communi- 
ties, were the parties to the compact; that no such i)olitical body has existed as the 
people of the United States, nor were they a partj' to the compact in a political 
capacity, or otherwise, except as the people of thirteen separate and distinct States; 
that, though high and important powers of sovereignty were delegated, yet sover- 
eignty itself remained in the people severally of the States, that they have only 
delegated powers, not sovereignty. 

Each State, or the people of each Stale, as a political body, being sovereign, has 
the unquestioned power to modify, change, control, and subvert their State gov- 
ernment and establish another; or, what is equivalent, they can revoke their grants 
of power, and adopt a new constitution or chart of grants. This principle of sov- 



ereignty is so well recognized, that, gouerallv, tlie mode of its exercifie is presenbed. 
Its acts are paraniount,''ana nil aiilhorities and citizens must submit to ils .le.;HioD. 
But the State is, in every reepect, as mucli a sovereign, with regard to the poweis 
it has delegated to the general agency or (iovernment, as to those winch it delegated 
to its State government,' It has control over all those poweis, because tlu-y are only 
delegated, n'ot surrendered or abandoned, to either of these governments. If they 
were relinquished, ihe State would no longer exist as a body politic ; the sovereignty 
■would be in the (Iovernment to which it was transferred; and to the people would 
be left, not that regulated right, acknowledged and recognized by AmerKan theory 
and practice, but that imaginary sovereignty which is Bupi)08ed to exist even under 
a despotic monarchv. 

The Slates, and "they alone, being parties to the Constitution, it >s as between 
them a compact, or league, although it is a frame of Government for those upon 
whom it operates; and the States "being sovereign members of this league, or con- 
federacy, have a right, as stable as the foundalions of international law, to renounce 
the league at any time, and withdraw from the federation. They arc bound to their 
confederates by the tics of good faith. The trampiillity and security ot maukind 
depend upon a due regard \o the rights of others. But each State can, with or 
without cause, separate from the others, being answerable as one nation is to another. 
If a treaty has been already violated by the otiier parties, her separation is no just 
cause of war. Each party or nation must judge for itself; and if her confederates 
will make waTr upon a seceding State, with or without cause, she must abide the 
issue. The right of secession depends on international law. It is above and inde- 
pendent of the Cunstitudon. If, however, sovereignty itself was but a right, then 
it exists iu the Stntf, among the reserved right's under the Constitution. Such right 
has not been prolubited to the States. But sovereignty is the creator, not the crea- 
ture of constitutions. The Constitution does not deal with sovereignty in any other 
manner except as receiving all its grants and authority from that source. 

If the States be sovereign, the act of withdrawal cannot, without an utter mis- 
conception and confusion of terms, be pronounced rebellion. This is the open re- 
nunciation of the authority of the Government to which one owes allegiance. The 
distinction between a rebel and an enemy is, that the former owes allegiance to the 
Government he attacks. Now, a soverefgn State owes no allegiance to any power. 
Its citizen owes obedience to the Government of the United States as long as the 
State remains a member of the Union, acknowledging its jurisdiction, and clamung 
the benefit of its protection. He owes this obedience solely from the act and con- 
■ent of his State to the Constitution. When this consent is recaUed by a State ; 
when, in the like sovereign capacity iu which she gave her assent, it is revoked, she 
dissevers the ties between her citizens and the General -Government, and expunges 
their obligation to obey the Constitution or laws of the United States. _ 

The act of a sovereign, declaring a compact, league, or treaty, no longer binding 
on him, has never been defined or treated as rebellion. Whether there be or not 
pst cause for such declaration, it is no violation of his allegiance, for he owes none 
to the cosovereign parties in the league; and the act of the sovereign binds the 
citizen, and absolves him from obedience to the compact. The citizen I's not indi- 
vidually responsible for the acts of the State to which his allegiance is due. The 
State is responsible. The citizen owes his allegiance to the State, and is bound to 
obey her acts; and these are a justification in law of his refusal to obey the laws of 
the United States. It would be to extinguish all the lights of international law to 
hold that the withdrawal of a sovereign State from a confederac}-, and her mandate 
that the laws of such confederacy should no longer have force within the limits of 
her territory, are of no higher authority than the declaration of the people of a 
county that the laws of the State should not be executed within the limits of that 
county. This would be rebellidn ; a violation of the allegiance owing to the State. 
The county is but a part of a consolidated political unity ; has no sovereignty, and 
is entitled to none of its rights or powers. 

But the act of a sovereign State, declaring a compact at an end, revoking a.l the 
powers she may have delegated, is not only no rebellion, but no cause of war on 
the part of other confederates, unless such withdrawal menace the safety or the ex- 
istence of the other States. It is of the deepest importance to the peace and tran- 
quillity of these States, t<* the cause of humanity itself, that the legal principles ap- 
plicable to the act of secession be clearly understood and eonclusiveh-established. 
If recession be rebellion, and coercive measures be used for its suppression, the citi- 
zens of the State, act as they may, would be treated as traitors on the one hand to 
the United States, and on the other to the State. This may be said to be an ordi- 



8 

nary, though cruel, contingency of rebellion. But if no coercion be used, (although 
the act be proclaimed rebellion,) then the citizens who support the State, though 
prcclaimed traitors, pass unmolested; but how unhappy and miserable the fate of 
those who exhibit fidelity and attachment to the United States. Deceived and en- 
snared by the denunciations of the Federal authorities that secession is unlawful, 
seditious, and rebellious, they might, to maintain the Union, be induced to appose 
this denounced rebellion by force of arms. Their " fidelity" would receive no sup- 
port from the C4overnment to which they had devoted their lives; they would be 
abandoned to the mercy of those who had been denounced traitors by the Federal 
Government, and would be laughed to scorn for their folly in putting their trust in 
the words of this great and powerful Government. But this confusion, this mon- 
strous incongruity, the fruitful source of mischief and civil internecine war, would 
vanish if the fundamental principles of the Union, as a compact between sovereign 
parties, were recognized and appreciated. The withdrawal by a State for just cause 
would be peaceful. Before secsssion, the citizens of the State might oppose the 
separation, if they deemed it impolitic or inexpedient, by all lawful means. But 
after separation, which ipm facto releases them from obedience to the Federal au- 
thority, it becomes their duty to support the State in the operation of its independ- 
ence, and as the sovereign to whom they owe their allegiance. On these plain and 
conclusive principles there would, if war supervened, be no rebellion, no treason. 
There would be enemies, but no rebels. 

I shall not enumerate the violations of the compact, the wrongs inflicted on the 
South, and the dangers with which she is menaced. These have e'ngendered discord, 
little less calamitous than actual hostilities. They have been often depicted in the 
glowing language of eloquence and truth; and f shall not repeat them. Senators 
are familiar with the gloomy details of the insults and wrongs to the South, and of 
the causes which are rending this vast' Confederacy into fragments. I may remind 
Senators, however, that a most powerful consideration inducing the consentof Texas 
to annexation was the apprehension of hazard to the institution of slavery from the 
diplomacy of Great Britain ; and now, when she discovers that instead of finding 
security she has encountered peril, when dangers are thickening around, threaten- 
ing the safety of the institution which lies at the foundation of her social organiza- 
tior, and is the life-blood of her existence, it cannot be surprising that she should 
secure herself against these instant and pressing evils, by abandoning the Confede- 
racy, and adopting such measures as will effectually protect her rights, and the 
tranquil enjoyment of her liberties. 

But the controversy about the causes of separation is no longer the question of 
primary interest. It has passed that stage in its progress. The process of disinte- 
gration has begun, and is making rapid advances; and the absorbing issue is: shall 
this sepai-ation be effected in peace, or result in war? Several of the States have, 
by solemn ordinances of conventions acting in their highest sovei-eign capacity, re- 
sumed their delegated powers, withdrawn from the Confederacy, and declared them- 
selves separate and independent States. Has this Government the power under the 
Constitution to reduce, by military force, a seceding State or her citizens to obedi- 
ence? That such power is not expressly' granted in the Constitution, is admitted. 
That it was deliberately refused, is shown bv the journals of the convention. In the 
plans submitted by Mr. Randolph and Mr. Paters'on, there was provisi(m to employ 
the ]>ower of the Union to enforce obedience to the laws of the United States. la 
the discussion, Mr. Madison observed that — 

"The more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the i)ractioalMlity, the justice and 
efficiency of it, when applied to people collectively and not individually. A Union of States, con- 
taining; such ;m ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruetion. The use of force against a 
State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would proba- 
bly be considered, by the party attacked, a dissolution of all the previous contracts by which it 
might be bound." — Madison Pape7-s, p. 761. 

The clause was then postponed, and never resumed. 

Mr. Masou denounced the plan of military coercion in very emphatic terms, as 
follows: 

" The most jarring elements of nature— fire and water— themselves, are not more incompatible 
than such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution." * * * "In one point of view he 
was strucli with horror at the prospect of recurring to this expedient. To punish the non-payment 
of taxes with death, was a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself; yet this unexampled cruelty 
would be mercy, compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no 
discrimination between the innocent and the gwWly.'"— Madison Papers, p. 914. 

Mr. Hamilton, on moie than one occasion, reprobated the scheme of employing 
force against States. In a speech iii the New York convention, he insisted that the 



9 

radical vice of tlie old confcileration wa?, that the laws of the Union applied to the 
States in their corporate capacity ; that. States executed requisitions only as suited 
their convenience or ndvantnge; and, in reference to the coercion of delinquent 
States, he said : 

"To coerce the States is one of llio maildest projci'ls tliat was ever devised. A fiiilurn of com- 
pliance will tuner be contliied to a Mw^lv Slalo. This beiiiR the case, can we Nuppom- it wIhc lo 
hazard a civil war V Suppose Massacliiisclts, ur any lar-jc Stale, should refuse, and CoiiRrcss tliould . 
attempt to compel thoin : would they not have Inlluence lo procure assistance, especially I'roiii those 
States who arc ill the same situation as themselves? What picture doos this idea ))re8cnl lo onr 
view. Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of anottier— this Slate, collecting 
auxiliaries, and forming, jierhaps, a majority against its Federal head V JTt re is a nation at war 
with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disjiosed towards a Cfovernment whiih iiiakes war 
and carnage the only means of supporting itself— a OoverDment that can exist only by the swurdY' 

The plan of the coercion of a State by force of arms was no new scheme, iipon 
which tiie members of the convention expressed hasty and ill-digested opinions. 
As the laws applied to States under the old Confederacy, and not generally to in- 
dividuals, it was not necessary for a State to approve a hiw. If tlie State did not 
act, the law wa.s defeated. If coercion by force against States was necessary or 
admissible under any federative Union, it was under the old Confederation. The 
States were often deh'nquent, and the Government of the Union reduced to a shadow ; 
and yet the United States could ijot obtain power to compel the States to fulfill 
their Federal engagements. 

Tiie proposition for military force against States had been discussed forj'ears; 
and the opposition of the convention, and the re''usal to grant such power in the 
new Constitution, was the result of mature deliberation. 

But it may be said that the denunciation of military force was to induce and 
commend to popular favor the change by which the Federal laws were made to ope- 
rate immediately on individuals, and not, as formerly, on the States in their corpo- 
rate capacity. That this consideration had its inlluence, appears from the debates 
them.-elves. One scheme was called the coercion of force; the other, the coercion 
of law. Mr. Ellsworth, in the Connecticut convention, after jiainting in strong 
coloi's the imbecility of the Confederacy from the want of a coercion of force— that 
without coercion there could be no Government — said : • 

"The only question is, shall it be a coercion of law or a coercion of arms? There is no other 
possible alternative. Where will those who oppose a coercion of law come out? Where will they 
end? A necessary consequence of their principles is a war of the States, one airainst the other. I 
am for coercion by law — that coercion wl\ieh acts on delinquent individuals. This Constitution 
doi-s not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies— States in their political cepacity. No coercion is ap- 
plicable to such bodies but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to e.xecute the laws of 
tlie Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and 
bad, the innocent and the guilty, in thesame calamity.'' — 2 EllioVs Debate, p. 199. 

Can it be imagined that the framers of the Constitution, denouncing as they did 
the coercion of arms against a .State in the strongest terms, intended that the power 
to enforce the law? against individuals, through peaceable processes before the ordi- 
nary magistracy, should be so perverted as to authorize the use of force against 
States; thus effecting, by fraud and stratagem, that which they openly denounced 
and solemni}' refused? The very statement of the case confutes the supjiosition. 
Every argument which had been urged for years against force to coerce States, was 
as potent under the new Union as the old Confederation. The change from the ac- 
tion of the laws on Slates to individuals infused, it is true, vast energy into the 
Government. Under the laws of Congress, the Government may, in aid of civil 
tribunals, resort to force to suppress insurrections of disorderly* and refractory indi- 
viduals against its authority. The insurrection niaj- bo wide-spread, embriicing 
vast massses of individuals; but if the resistance be not organized under the au- 
thority of a State, it is but an insurrection or rebellion, and may be suppressed by 
the whole force of the United States. 

But this power against insurgents was never to be used against States. Our 
fathers suffered the Confederacy to fall into total impoteney rather than allow mili- 
tary force against States. To remedy thi.s, they granted, in sid^.^lance, power, civil 
and military, against individRials ; but never t» be converted into an instrument 
against the States in the cases which would very rarely occur of active organized 
resistance by them against the laws of the Federal Union. Mr. Hamilton, in the 
sixteenth number of the Federalist, denounces the use of military force against the 
sovereign States of a Confederacy, declares the effect to be civil and bloody wars ; 
commends the Constitution, on the ground that it carries its agency to the persona 
of the citizens, and can employ the arm of the ordinary magistracy to exeeute its 
resolutions; and in answer to the objection that a State, disaffected to the authority 



10 

of the Union, could at B.'^y time obstruct the execution of its laws, does not recom- 
mend the employment of force against the State; disapproves of the experiment; 
but expresses, in substance, that through the concurrence of the majority of the 
Legislature, of the courts of justice, and of the body of the people, such resistance 
would meet with success, and, that attempts of the kind would not be often made. 
In the twenty-eighth number of the Federalist, Mr. Hamilton says: 

" It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State Government will, 
in all possiljle continfjencies, afford complete security against invasions of public liberty by the na- 
tional authority. Pi'ujecta of usurpation cannot bemasked under pretenses so likely to e.scape the 
penetration of "select bodies of men, as of the people at lar^e. The Legislature will have better 
means of information; they can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs 
of civil |)<)wer, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adoi)t a regular plan of opposi- 
tion, in which they can coml>inc all the resources of'the community. They can readily communi- 
cate wilh each otlier in the ditl'erent States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their 
common liberty." 

But, if military force was denied to the old Confederacy for the execution of any 
of its laws; if the grant for the like purpose was refused under the present Consti- 
tution ; and if there be no pretext that, under the plea of enforcing laws against 
individuals, coercion of arms may be employed against a sovereign State, — can there 
be a shadow of claim in the General Government to coerce a State into submission, 
that has by solemn ordinance dissolved all connection with the Union, and resumed 
its separate sovereignty and independence ? 

The objection to a military force against a State was that it would involve war 
and bloodshed. If this be valid, even when a State is in the Union, it acquires pro- 
digious power against any attempt to employ force against a State which has as- 
sumed separate sovereignty, claiming no advantage from the Union and owing it 
no duties or obligations. The tiue ground of objection to force against a State is 
its sovereignty. If this is a consolidated Government, if the States are provinces 
or departments — if they hold the position to the Union that a district or county 
does to a State, then the denunciations of military force are unmeaning. England 
and Scotland were independent kingdoms. They were united into the kingdom of 
Great Britain. Neither Madison, Hamilton, or any statesman or publicist, would 
denounce the use of force against Scotland were she to resist the laws of Great 
Britain or attempt to secede, for the reason tliat Scotland had relinquished her sov- 
ereign charact'-r, and is but a province or territorial division of the new kingdom. 
Will any one contend that the States hold tiie relative position to the Union that 
Scotland does to the kingdom of Great Britain ? Scotland has no independent Legis- 
lature, no civil state, no control over life, liberty, or property; no reserved powers, 
as has each State of this Union; and military coercion which may be applied to 
the first as a rebellious province, a part of a political unity, cannot, at least without 
express grant, be used against the latter, which is a sovereignty, not a part of a po- 
litical unity, but a political unit itself, which, with other units, make the multij^le 
of the Union, or, out of tiie Union, a complete and independent sovereignty. 

As the question of force against a seceding State depends mainl}' upon the charac- 
ter of the Government, whether consolidated or a confederation by compact of 
Bovereign States, and as the sovereignty of the States and the right of secession 
were never asserted with more felicitj' and cogency than in the resolutions offered 
by Mr. Randolph, at Charlotte, in 1852, I will read them as a part of my argument : 

'■'• Resolved, That "Virginia is, and ought to be, a free, sovereign, and independent State ; that she 
became so by her separate act, which has since been recognized by the civilized world, and has 
never been disavowed, retracted, or in anywise impaired or weakened by any subsequent act of 
hers. . ■ 

^^He^oloed, That when, for common defence and common welfare, Virginia entered into a strict 
league o( amity with the other twelve colonies of British North America, she parted with no por- 
tion of her Hovereirjnty, although, from the necessity of the case, the authority to cnforcii obedience 
thereto was, in certain cases, and for certain purposes, delegated to the common agents of the 
whole confederacy.- 

'■'■Renal eed, Tliat Virginia has never parted with the right to recall the authority so delegated, 
for good and suflicient eause, nor with the right to judge of the sufficiency of such cause, and to se- 
cede from the Confederacy whensoever she shall And the benelts of Union exceeded by. its evils — 
union being the means of securing liberty and happiness, ana not an end to which these should 
be sacrificed. 

'■'■Remlved, That the allegiance of the people of Virginia is due to her; that to her their allegi- 
ance is due, while to them she owes the protection against the consequences of such obedience." 

In the languge of the resolution, Virginia has not parted with the authority to 
recall her delegated powers. Siie expressly reserved her right in her act of ratifi- 
cation, declaring that powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from 
the people of the United States, ■may be reserved by them whenever the same shall 



11 

be perverted to their injury or oppression, and tliat every power not f^rnnted thereby 
remains with them, anil ix\ tiicir will. The language is wanting in precision, but its 
meaning cannot be mistaken. It speaks of tlie people of the United States. Hut 
as they\lid not eoUectively, or as a political body, grant any powers, so none can 
be resumed by them. The people of each State granted powers; and they can be 
resumed only by the people of each State. Virginia was acting for her own people, 
and could speak only for them. 

In the nititication by New York, the delegation of power by the people of the 
State, and their right of resumption, are e.xpressed in terms of great clearness: 

"That all power is orifjinally vostcl in, and consequently derlverl from, the pcoplo, and that 
government is instituted by tliem for their common interest, protection, and security. That the 
powers of Government may be reassunied by tlie people, whensoever it shall become nece»*ary to 
their liapi)ines8; that every power, jurisdiction, iind ri;;lit, which is not l)y the said constitution 
clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government 
thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to 
whom they may have granted the same." 

Khode Island also declared : 

"That a^l power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the people ; that magis- 
trates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them. That the pow- 
ers of government may be rednisumed by the i>eo)iile whensoever it shall become necessary to their 
happiness." 

What would these provisions mean if inserted in the constitution of a State? 
That the powers of Government could be resumed, but only through war and blood? 
Certairdy not. They aflirin in Americ»vn political science a recognized, peaceful 
right of resumption by the people of the several States, the grantors, whether the 
grant were to the government of the State or the Government of a confederated 
Republic. Small would have been our advance in the paths of liberty, in vain 
would the blood of the Revolution have been shed, if this be but the assertion of a 
right which a down-trodden serf may claim, with a halter round his neck and the 
gallows as his doom, if his resistance through blood and carnage be unsuccessful. 

Having established the positions that the States relinquished no portion of sov- 
ereignty, and that their right to resnme their delegated powers is perfect, the act 
of secession furnishes no legal or justifiable ground for war against a State by its 
former confederates. The c< mpact was broken by the North, and it is no cause of 
hostility that it should now be treated as broken' by the South. We are at pence 
with all the world, and the separation of one or more States from the Confederaey 
does not endanger the safety or the existence of others. But admit that secession 
is rebellion, will you make war on five States, five million people, increased pi'oba- 
bly to fifteen States and twelve million ? Can you possibly dream of conquest in a 
war of this character? You cannot employ the forces of the United States unless 
in aid of judicial processes; and how can these be obtained when among the mil- 
lions you are attempting to coerce none can be fonnd who would hold office under 
your Government? But should you disregard the provisions of the Constitution, 
declare martial law, and attempt to crush out the spirit of liberty, be not deceived 
with the delusion that you will triumph in this wicked warfare, nor that the war 
would spend all its furj" in the South. Assaults can be best repelled by assuming 
the'offensive. 

If for peace we are to have desolation, the butchery of our finest youths, the 
mangled limbs of men, the shrieks of the virgin, the smoke and ashes of consumed 
habitations, think you that these scenes of horror will not be enacted in your opu- 
lent and magnificent cities, your great towns, and beautiful hamlets? If war should 
ccme, its ealamities will be inflicted on the whole eountiy, and blood will redden the 
streams of tlie North as well as South. Let no countenance be given the delusion 
that slavery is an element of weakness, or that the South would be endangered 
from slave" insurrections. The heroes and conquering nations of antiquity were 
slaveholders. I was born in the South, have lived long upon the earth, and have 
never witnessed even an attempt at an insurrection. Of the rumors of this charac- 
ter, but very few have any foundation other than the causeless alarm, or, though 
rarely, a spfrit of mischief. The phantasm that there is no sense of security in the 
South, is utterly groundless and superlatively absurd. Many of the slaves, raised 
with their masters, joining with them in all the sports of boyhood, the constant re- 
cipients of their kindness "in sickness and health, would eagerly sacrifice their livea 
in their defence. And all of them, regarding their masters very justly as their 
guardians and protectors, would most willingly encounter danger and render sei^- 
vice to secure their triumph. But this would not be necessary; the slaves would 



12 

continue their agricultural labors, while the war would rage in a sphere above 
them. Thf food and sujiplies of tlie country would thus be constantly produced, 
while these would be very much endangered in the free-labor sections, where every 
inhabitant may be dragged from his field to the camp. 

Such very few insurrections as have occurred, aud the plans of risings that have 
been detected, have invariably been partial — limited to a neighborhood, county, or 
small district. The alarms have been partial, aud very quickly subside ; and the 
idea that the South would be required to employ part of its forces to prevent in- 
surrection could have originated only in the disordered brain of a fanatic; and I 
dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. Bad men may attempt excitement, and 
may create irritation; but they will have no more success in disturbing the loyalty 
of the slave population than did John Brown in his raid at Harper's Ferry. 

^Yhy sliould tliere be war between the United States of the North and the United 
States of the South. If the United States of Mexico and the States of America now 
live in peace to the mutual advantage of both countries, why should not the con- 
federacies that are now springing into life be at peace? The dissolution of this 
Union is not an end of free Government. Its power gives security and, repose to 
the people; and this is the cause of their rapid advancement in all the elements of 
prosperity and greatness. But this development and prosperity will flow on in in- 
creased volume and gi-andeur under any free Govei-nmeuts strong enough to repel 
foreign aggression and repress domestic dissension. The two confederacies would, 
in a few years, be each of them more powerful than the existing Government; and 
if there be ainity between them, (there being no internal elements of discord in 
either confederacy,) the progress and improvement of each would attain a height 
and gi'eatness of which history furnishes no example. 

I will notice but very briefly the charge of ingratitude against the State of Texas, 
should she attempt a separation from the United States. It must be remembered 
that the United States did not, by the annexation of Texas, propose exclusively or 
mainly the benefit of the latter. 

The official records show that the honor, peace, and safety of the United States 
were the principal considerations. Among other proofs of this I refer to the inau- 
gural message of President Polk. He said: 

"Noae c.in fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas remains an independent 
State, or becomes au ally or dependency of some foreign nation more powerful tlian herself. Is 
there one among our citizens who would not prefer perpetual peace wUh Texas to occasional wars, 
which so often occur between bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not prefer 
free intercourse with her, to high duties on all our products and manufactures which enter I er ports 
or cross her frontiers? Is there one who would not prefer an unrestricted communication with her 
citizens, to the iroutier obstructions which must occur if she remaius out of the Union?" 

I will recur very briefly to the conditions of annexation. The United States de- 
manded the unconditional surrender of the arms and f(>rts of Texas, and all the 
means of public defence; although now, when their own arms and foits are in ques- 
tion, the savage cry of the swarming millions of the North is, "we will have the 
forts or we will have b!ood." I will not comment on the terms in relation to slavery. 
The statement of them would be their coudemnatiou. This vast accession to the 
United States of fertile territory, in a delightful climate, was characterized in the 
President's message of December 2, 1845, as a "bloodless achievement." The sword 
had no part, nor did the purse have any in the victory. 

True, Texas retained her public lands; but those, after the surrender of the reve- 
nue from customs, was her principal resource for the extinguishment of the sacred 
debt of the war of independence, and for the support of tiie government and the 
existence of the Republic. But Texas is charged — at least indirectly — with being 
the cause of the war with Mexico, with its enormous expenditures of money, and 
of the blood and lives of thousands who fell upon the battle-field, covered with 
imperishaVjle honors. Can it be possible that all these vast expenditures were in- 
curred, that State after State of Mexico was overrun, that its proud Capital was 
occupied by our victoiious armies — and all this for the defence of Texas, and the 
integrity of her soil? Let its examine the facts. 

Mr. Polk, in his message of December, 1846, declares that the war with Mexico 
was not j)rovoked by the United States; that — 

"After years of endurance of aggravated and unredressed wrongs on our part, Mexico, in viola- 
tion of solemn treaty stipulations, and of every principle of justice recognized by civilized nations, 
commenced hostilities ; and thus, by her own act, forced the war upon us. Long before the advance 
of our Army, to the left bank of the Eio Grande, we had ample cause of war against Mexico." 



18 

He presents a gloomy list of the insults and spoliation?, the •wrongs nn.l outrnpeff, 
coinniilte.l by Mexico Hi;aiiist the citiztMiH of the United Sliites for a I'crio.l of more 
tlian twentj- years; that if these had been resented, the war woiihl have been 
avoided; tluit" Mie annexation of Texas was no just cause of ofl'enee to Mexico; that 
Texas iiad been an independent State for more ihan ten yeais; that tlie threats of 
Mexico to invade tiie territory of Texas beuanie more iinpo.-inf;^ ns it l)eeame more 
apparent that Texas would decide in favor of annexation ; tliat it, wouUl have been 
a violation of good faith to the people of Texas to have refusi.-d aid dtsainst a threat- 
ened iuua&ion to which they had been exposed by their free detcrmiualion to annex 
tht'inneli'es to our Union. 

"The war has not been wascd with a view to conquest; but having been commencefl l)y Mexico, 
it has been carriuJ into the enemy's country, anil will be vigorously ijrosecuted there, with a view to 
obtain an honorable peace, and Ihereby to secure an ample indemniti/for t/ie erpeiixefi <<f t/ieicar, 
as well as to our much injured eitizenn, who hoW large pecuniary Uemands against Mexico.' 

It is apparent, from the message, that Ihe invasion by Mexico of tlie territory of 
Texas was occasioned by tiie acceptance of the terms of annexation by the Wilter; 
that thouu^h Mexico strnck the first blow, yet the United States immediately assumed 
the agi,'r»^ssive — extended her conquests, not for the defence of Texas, but to secure 
indeninity fur the ex[ieiises of the war, and the losses and wrongs of the injured 
citizens. These grievances had been set forth in the previous message of the ['resi- 
dent, in May ll.lsid; and Congress responded by the act of May 13, 1846, author- 
izini; lifty thousand volunteers and ten millions appropriation. The proclamation 
from the 'War Department, issued by General Taylor, of June 4, 184U, shows that 
the United States were prosecuting the war for causes other than the defence if 
Texas. Here is the proclauiation of General Taylor: 

" To the people of Meou-o: After many years of patient endurance, the United Stales are at 
length constrained toacknowledi^t! that a\>arnow exists between our Government and the Govern- 
ment of Mexico. For many years our citizens have been subjected to rej)ealed insults and injuries, 
our vessels and cargoes have been seized and confiscattd, our luerchiints have been plinidered, 
maimed, imprisoned, without cause and without reparation. At length your Government acknowl- 
edged the justice of our claims, and agreed, by treity, to make salK-fiiction, Ijy payment of several 
niiliion dollars; but this trealv has been violated by your rulers, and the stipulated payments have 
been withheld. Our late effort to terminate alldifficulties by peaciful negotiation has been rejected 
by the Dictator Paredes; and our minister of peace, whom your ruler.-* had agreed to receive, has 
been refused a hearing. He has been treated with indignity and insult, and Paredes has announced 
that war exists between us." 

And here are the purposes for which the war is waged: 

"We come to obtain reparation for repeated wrongs and injuries; we come to ol)tain indemnity 
for the past and security for the future." 

The only indemnity for the long-deferred claims of our citizens, and the reim- 
bursement of the expenses of the war, was stated in the message of December, 1847, 
to be a cessiou of a portion of the Territory of Mexico to the United States. That 
the doctrine of "no territory was no indemnity," and if sanctioned, would be a 
public acknowledgment that our country was wrong, tliat the war declar<'d by Con- 
gress with extraordinary unauimitj was unjust, and should be abandoned ; " an ad- 
mission unfounded in fact, and degrading to the national character." This is an 
unequivocal acknowledgement, that no matter with what intent Mexico may liave 
stricken the tirst blow, or in other words, shed "American blood on American soil," 
yet the United States prosecuted the war to obtain indemnity for the grievous and 
accumulated wrongs of tlieir citizens. 

Texas is surely not resjionsible, morally or otherwise, at least to but a limited ex- 
tent, for the vast expenditures of money, or for the lives of so many valiant and 
heroic men sacrificed in the prosecution of this war of conquest, to indemnify citi- 
zens of tiie United Stales, aijd secui'e thera against future wrongs. One effect of 
the war was to secure Texas against foreign aggression ; and for that she has not been 
wanting in gratitude. Another result was the cession of New Mexico and California 
to the UTiited States, or rive hundred and twenty six thousand and seventy eight 
square miles west of the Rio Grande. Tiie latter, namely, California, has supplied 
the world with *.500,00<),U')0 of its circulation, all drawn from the rich mineral lands 
of the United States. If the gold be extracted by squatters without right or title, 
it is the misfortune of the Government, but does not iiiq)air the value o; the acqui- 
sition. ■ ' _ , 

The fortifications and the arms and military stores of the United States in Texas, 
are too utterly insignificant to deserve notice. Of the more than thirty million dol- 
lars expended for fortifie;.tions in the United Slates, but sSOi) have been laid out in 
Texas. There is but a beggarly account of email arms iu the United Slates arsenals 



14 

in Texas — a few more, perhaps, than five thousand, including the serviceable and 
unserviceable. 

The sale, four years after annexation, of a large portion of the territory of Texas 
to the United States has frequently been made the subject of reproach. The cry 
that our title was not good, insulting and groundless as it is, lias become stale from 
repetition. ^ The boundary of Texas, from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its source, 
was proclaimed b^- Texas from the commencement of her revolution, and was re- 
cognized in the first law on her statute-book, in ISSG. That this was the boundary 
of Texas, fixed by legislation, was known to Mexico; it was known to the United 
States, and to the great Powers of Europe, among whom we took rank as a nation. 
The war between Texas and Mexico was not about boundary. Mexico claimed the 
whole country ; and so did Texas ; though during the progress of annexation, Mex- 
ico proposed to acknowledge the independence of Texas, leaving the boundary to 
future negotiations. 

By the articles of annexation, Texas authorized the United States to adjust all 
questions of boundary that might arise with Mexico. The title of Texas to the 
whole of her territory was founded upon the sword. She was under no moral, legal, 
or international obligation to restrict the limits of the Republic to the lines of the 
old province of Texas; nor did the validity of her title, at least with respect to the 
United States, depend upon the actual possession and jurisdiction over every foot 
of her territory. And such was the opinion of the United States in sending troops 
to the lower Rio Grande. The country in the immediate vicinity of that river had 
been and was then in the occupation of the Mexican authorities; and all the acts of 
that de facto Government relative to private rights, up to possession by the American 
troops, have been recognized by thejudicial tribunals as valid and binding. But 
yet the United States asserted the right of Texas, and declared that the blood of her 
soldiers poured out on the battle-fields of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma was 
"American blood shed upon American soil." 

The United States, from annexation, in 1846, to 1850, recognized the validity of 
our title to the country east of the upper Rio Grande. Gi-neral Kearny, in taking 
possession of New Mexico, in August, 1846, speakiqg in the name of his Gove: nment, 
declared to the people that he considered, and had for some time considered, the 
country as a part of the territory of the United States. This was an assertion of the 
title of Texas. It could not possibly have been a part of the United States unless 
by being a part of Texas. The President, in February, 1847, admitted that the 
possession of the country by the United States was held in subjerviency to the title 
of Texas. This will be seen by reference to his-special message of July 24, 1848. 
Here is the message of Mr. Polk : 

" Under the circumstances existing din-inR the pcmlency of the war, .and while tlie whole of New 
Mexico, as claimed by our enemy, was in our military occupation, I was not unmindful of the rights 
of Texas to that portion of it which she chximed to be within her limits. In answer to a lottf r .from 
the Governor of Texas, dated on the 4tli of January, 1847, the Secretary of State, by my direction, 
informed him, in a letter of the 12th of February, 1S47, that, in the President's annual niessa.e of 
December, 184G, 'you have already perceived that New Mexico is at present in the temporary ocou- 

F alien of the troops of the United States, and the government over it is military in its character, 
t is merely such a government as must exist under the laws of nations and of war, to preserve 
order, and protect the rights of the inhabitants, and will cease on the conclusion of a treaty of peace 
with Mexico. Nothing, therefore, can be more certain than that this temporary government, result- 
ing from necessity, can never injuriously aiTect the right which the President believes to be justly 
asserted by Texas to the whole territory on this aide of the Rio Grande whenever the Mexican claim 
to it shall have been extinguished to it by treaty. But this is a subject which more properly belonge 
to the legislative than the executive branch of the Government.' 

"The result of the whole is, that Texas had asserted a right to that part of New Mexico east of 
the Rio Grande, which is believed, under the acts of Congress for the annexation and admission 
of Texas into the Union as a State, and under the constitution and laws of Texas, to bo well 
founded." 

Pending the negotiations, Mr. Trist, our commissioner, asserted the obligation of 
the United States to defend the title of Texas. He said that — 

"Until ascertained by a compact or agreement between the United States and Mexico, the boun- 
dary between the two llepublics, when considered with reference to the national obligation to pro- 
tect their territory from invasion, could be none other than that very boundary which had been 
asserted by Texas herself." 

On the 12th of October, 1848, the Secretary of War, Governor Marcy, in bis in- 
etructions to the commanding officer at Santa Fe, declared that — 

" In regard to that part of what the Mexicans call New Mexico, lying east of the Rio Grande, the 
civil authority which Texas has established, or may establish there, is to be respected, and in no 
manner to be interfered with by the military force in that department, otherwise than to lend aid 
on proper occasions in enforcing it." 



15 

These extracts aj-e eviaence of the opinions of the Administration at tlie time of 
the annexation uf.TcxiiP, that prosecuUHl the war against M.-xic-, noLr-.tialed tUa 
treaty, an.l had a thorough knowledge uf all -nioi^tions growing out of t he annexa- 
tion policy and the war with Mcxiro. Hul the im|.ri'gnab!e bar^m of tl.e title ol 
Texas wa^ that she \v;is admitted as a State witli bovindariea wlueli were not elmnged, 
modified, or restricted by the treaty witli Mexico; that the boundary of tic Umtea 
States was so extended as to emUfaee the utmost limits of Texas . <>'• ^''^s^ ^jLf^ 
the United States became utterly powerless with regard to the ti^le of lexiis ilio 
boundary of Texas could no more be disturbed by the United Stales than could the 
boundary of any other State, or of even any foreign nation. It has been settled 
since the foundation of the (Government that Congress has no power over tlie boun- 
daries of a State; and the United States admitted the doctrine for years alter the 
annexation of Texas. The United States was the trustee of Texas in settlii.g the 
boundary question, and could not have acquired the subject-matter in opposition to 
the right of the principal. The act would be a fraud ot inelTable baseness, void in 
all courts and countries where right and equity are recognized. She was in one 
sense the umpire; and could she end the controversy by tortiously converting tlie 
property to her own use? , _, ,,, 

But, notwithstanding the acts and admissions through the four years of Mr. 1 oik a 
administration, and the indisputable validity of the title of Texas, the succeeding 
Administration evinced hostility, which culminated in the message of August C, I80O, 
menacing punishment against all attempts to enforce the laws of Texas; tliat the 
troops under the command of the State of Texas should be treated as intruders and 
trespassers, and that the forces of the United States would be employed to coerce a 
sovereign State, punish her citizens acting in obedience to her eonimand as criminal^ 
and eject her authorities and laws from a large portion of her prescribed and dehued 
limits. Under such circumstances, with the ui>liited sword in the onehaud and the 
purse in the other, the United States proposed a purchase of tlie Territory. 

Texas was in no condition to accept hostilities. She had, prior to annexation, 
befen exhausted by the troubles with Mexico and the savage. She was hourly ac- 
quiring strength by repose and tranquillity. She chose the alternative that truo 
policy dictated. Peace was everything to her. War would have blasted her pros- 
perity. She determined to disregard the offensive circumstances ol the proposal to 
purchase, and accept it as most conducive to her highest interest, and solid and per- 
manent advantEge. The alternative was painful. The dismemberment of a nation 8 
territory iiierces the heart of every citizen. It is never submitted to unless to avoid 
still greater evil. And shall the United States, who extorted this territory from 
Texas at almost literally the point of bayonet, in order to conceal the odium of tlie 
outrai'e, be suffered to pervert the whole transaction, and even invoke sympathy as 
a purchaser of a defective title? Will the despoiler fill the air with his cries and 
coni4)laiiits as if he himself liad been the victim? But I forbear. 1 have said etiough 
to vindieate the title of Texas. And whether her title were good or bad, the Lnited 
States ought to be forever silent; or if she spoke, to pray that the angel of mercy 
might expunge the whole act from the pages of history. _ /^ n 

I have spoken to repel assault; but in no captious or querulous spirit. On the 
behalf of Texas, I disdain the language of complaint. I vindicate the truth of his- 
tory ; nothing more. , . 

Freely, without price, Texas brought an empire to the United States. Her admis- 
siou wa--> the instrumentality by reason of which there was acquired to the United 
Sta-es the vast region from the Rio Grande to the Pacific, with its countless mineral, 
agricultural, and commercial riches. In the wide domain of Texas the Government 
has constructed no forrs, no court-houses, finished no arsenals, no custom-houses, and 
stored but a very limited supply of arms. Thirty million people cannot be drawn 
into war for the defence of any miserable forts on the oast of Texas. We have none. 
The United States have expended large amounts annually in maintaining the 
troops in Texas. Troops, in well orgariized military arrangements, are stationed on<|f 
the frduliers of a country; these frontiers have been desolated by the savage. One 
hundred lives were sacrificed last year; and within a month or two thirty were 
massacred with the most shocking barbarities. The troops must be supported, let 
them be stationed where they wiU. Texas will never forget the benefits she has 
derived from the Union. She has received none from direct legislation. But she 
has had peace and tranquillit3\ She has had a sense of security; and she has in- 
creased from one hundred thousand to six hundred thousand persons, and advanced 
rapidly in all the elements of wealth and power. Texas appreciated the advantages 
she derived from Mexico, the immense grants of land, exemption from taxation, tUo 



16 • 

mild adminisfiTk^ion of berlSws. But for cau^s justified by th.e world, Texas was 
impelled to a separation >and now, on grounds deemed esseiitial*-^o lier security and 
happiness, she will feel herself constrained to dissolve connection with this Confed- 
eracy; fling again her glorious and triumphant banner to the breeze, and establish 
on secure basis the rights, the liberties, and the happiness of her people. 






X. 



v'v. , x^-- 




^*:^^^.r ^^ A^^ _► 










^' ,«* '^*. 










c° / 











V* .♦ 



^*<.'-?^'*/ %-.fyyA'' *<->»r'> %•■' 




























°=^^9'S' 












.o"^ I BOOKSINOI^C 



* .^^ '^ .^ 



